No, one falsified paper does not affect millions of people just as one accepted paper does not affect millions of people. No treatments or procedures are changed or implemented over one paper. These types of changes are implemented after extreme examination of the evidence presented by studies and clinical trials by the governing board of each specialty and approved by the appropriate agency of the federal government. There is no way one paper can force a change, that's just not how it works but it would make a great headline, right?

Thanks for your Reply!

Report This| Share this:More Retracted Papers from Cardiology GroupNo, one falsified paper does not affect millions of people just as one accepted paper does not affect millions of people. No treatments or procedures are changed or implemented over one paper. These types of changes are implemented after extreme examination of the evidence presented by studies and clinical trials by the governing board of each specialty and approved by the appropriate agency of the federal government. There is no way one paper can force a change, that's just not how it works but it would make a great headline, right?

So can you name a prominent or "high visibility" paper that has been retracted that affected millions of people?

Also, of the 6 papers retracted that were mentioned by Forbes, none were the result of falsification of data or omission of data as your statement would imply. I just read the formal retraction on all and all involved an "enhanced" image that may not have accurately represented the intended image. Not saying it's OK, but it's not falsification of data.

Also, of the 6 papers retracted that were mentioned by Forbes, none were the result of falsification of data or omission of data as your statement would imply. I just read the formal retraction on all and all involved an "enhanced" image that may not have accurately represented the intended image. Not saying it's OK, but it's not falsification of data.

1) One graph in particular that attracted the world's attention would be Ancel Key's graph depicting an association between dietary fat and death rates for heart disease, comparing different countries.

Of course the association wasn't real. Keys tossed out data that did not meet his criteria. This is called lying by omission. Had Key's used all the data available, there would be no association whatsoever.

The study graph was never retracted, but it had an incredible impact and kicked off the low fat diet fad that millions of people to bought into. It was extremely misleading.

1) One graph in particular that attracted the world's attention would be Ancel Key's graph depicting an association between dietary fat and death rates for heart disease, comparing different countries.

Of course the association wasn't real. Keys tossed out data that did not meet his criteria. This is called lying by omission. Had Key's used all the data available, there would be no association whatsoever.

The study graph was never retracted, but it had an incredible impact and kicked off the low fat diet fad that millions of people to bought into. It was extremely misleading.

That's a huge reach. First off as you mentioned the study was never retracted because it was NEVER found to be falsified. (FYI, studies are not typically retracted, we were talking about articles, this is just another shift in the discussion or is there a confusion between studies, trials and articles?). Also, the only people that consider it flawed are the same groups that complain about JUPITER. the anti-cholesterol crowd. This study is still accepted as the predecessor of the Mediterranean diet. The results can still be accessed at PubMed and have recently been through a 20 year follow up that supported the original results.;

Over the past four decades, observational studies have come to conclusions similar to those of Keys and his coworkers. In observational studies, very large numbers of people are recruited. Careful measurements are made of their diet, exercise pattern, smoking status, weight and very many other variables. The participants report any new health problems that have developed. All of these measurements of lifestyle and health are made repeatedly over many years.

In any case, what affect did it have on millions, they cut saturated fats out of their diets? No one suffered any adverse effects as a result. A major stretch to make a point.

As far as Dipak K Das goes, yes he did falsify his work it appears, but how did it affect millions of people, they drank wine? How were they worse off for drinking wine? Again, truly falsified but not really an impact on the population.

What you are missing is that in this case there was no proclamation of a new treatment for CVD that included drinking wine, some of the public ran with and drank some wine.

That's a huge reach. First off as you mentioned the study was never retracted because it was NEVER found to be falsified. (FYI, studies are not typically retracted, we were talking about articles, this is just another shift in the discussion or is there a confusion between studies, trials and articles?). Also, the only people that consider it flawed are the same groups that complain about JUPITER. the anti-cholesterol crowd. This study is still accepted as the predecessor of the Mediterranean diet. The results can still be accessed at PubMed and have recently been through a 20 year follow up that supported the original results.;

Over the past four decades, observational studies have come to conclusions similar to those of Keys and his coworkers. In observational studies, very large numbers of people are recruited. Careful measurements are made of their diet, exercise pattern, smoking status, weight and very many other variables. The participants report any new health problems that have developed. All of these measurements of lifestyle and health are made repeatedly over many years.

In any case, what affect did it have on millions, they cut saturated fats out of their diets? No one suffered any adverse effects as a result. A major stretch to make a point.

As far as Dipak K Das goes, yes he did falsify his work it appears, but how did it affect millions of people, they drank wine? How were they worse off for drinking wine? Again, truly falsified but not really an impact on the population.

What you are missing is that in this case there was no proclamation of a new treatment for CVD that included drinking wine, some of the public ran with and drank some wine.

No, it has never been shown to have any falsified or ommitted data. Bobby, it was 1957. This study was the first true lipid study and is still widely acclaimed in medicine and is only questioned by skeptics that are going way back to 1957 to make a point.

We should maybe stay a little more current since as some here have said, things chage.

Thanks for your Reply!

Report This| Share this:More Retracted Papers from Cardiology GroupNo, it has never been shown to have any falsified or ommitted data. Bobby, it was 1957. This study was the first true lipid study and is still widely acclaimed in medicine and is only questioned by skeptics that are going way back to 1957 to make a point.

We should maybe stay a little more current since as some here have said, things chage.

Another stretch. It was 1957, there was not an infrastructure in place in many countries that could facilitate a study of this nature. Countries were selected that were capable of being included, nothing ommitted. Again, the only people that point a finger are the same ones that complain about JUPITER.

You really have issues with educated people, I guess we should let the uneducated non-professionals do the work on these studes.

You were a teenager in 1957 and reading studies?

Thanks for your Reply!

Report This| Share this:More Retracted Papers from Cardiology GroupAnother stretch. It was 1957, there was not an infrastructure in place in many countries that could facilitate a study of this nature. Countries were selected that were capable of being included, nothing ommitted. Again, the only people that point a finger are the same ones that complain about JUPITER.

You really have issues with educated people, I guess we should let the uneducated non-professionals do the work on these studes.

Related Drug Reviews

Report Problems With Your Medications to the FDA

You are encouraged to report negative side effects of prescription drugs to the FDA. Visit the FDA MedWatch website or call 1-800-FDA-1088.

The opinions expressed in WebMD Communities are solely those of the User, who may or may not have medical or scientific training. These opinions do not represent the opinions of WebMD. Communities are not reviewed by a WebMD physician or any member of the WebMD editorial staff for accuracy, balance, objectivity, or any other reason except for compliance with our Terms and Conditions. Some of these opinions may contain information about treatments or uses of drug products that have not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. WebMD does not endorse any specific product, service or treatment.

Do not consider Communities as medical advice. Never delay or disregard seeking professional medical advice from your doctor or other qualified healthcare provider because of something you have read on WebMD. You should always speak with your doctor before you start, stop, or change any prescribed part of your care plan or treatment. WebMD understands that reading individual, real-life experiences can be a helpful resource, but it is never a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment from a qualified health care provider. If you think you may have a medical emergency, call your doctor or dial 911 immediately.